Archive

The national security council has said the ODA [Overseas Development Administration] budget should make the maximum possible contribution to national security consistent with ODA rules. Although the NSC will not in most cases direct DfID spend in country, we need to be able to make the case for how our work contributes to national security.” – DFID document

Documents leaked from DFID over the past couple of weeks hint at a significant shift in the future direction of Britain’s overseas development policy; a reorientation that cannot be viewed with optimism.

Conflating concerns over national security with overseas development assistance is hardly a new phenomenon – much of the Marshall Plan was governed by similar issues – yet it’s increasing prevalence is in contrast to the dominant liberal orientation of international relations in the post-Cold War context. Liberalism, and therefore humanitarian intervention, has endured repeated attacks from both Right and Left. The Right have long argued that self-interest must govern foreign policy whilst the rise of post-structuralism on the Left has questioned the long-assumed moral superiority of the West. Technological development, and the attendant growth in public access to information, has fundamentally damaged the image of the West, and the US in particular, as the guardian of progressive, democratic values. There is no moral authority when the US attacks Afghanistan and Iraq or when Israel commits its regular atrocities, and global sentiment has become resolutely anti-American (although Obama has alleviated this to a certain extent). Put simply, there now exists a choice between supporting a truly altruistic aid agenda (where we expect little in return) or one based on overbearing conditionalities. It’s clear that the UK has chosen the latter. Given the present state of most Western economies, and the increasingly multipolar nature of global politics, this is hardly surprising.

Iraq and Afghanistan were both major recipients of DFID expenditure over the past decade (although Iraq was not in the top 15 for 2008/2009 – see figure 1), yet the trend has been for aid to largely go to where it is needed (or to former British colonies). Much of

figure 1

the aid directed to Iraq and Afghanistan was aimed at the amelioration of the fragile security situation in the two states (and ultimately British national security interests). Whilst this is understandable in the context of post-conflict reconstruction there are two key problems with the approach. Foremost is the issue of an aid imbalance – the vast majority of aid to Afghanistan from global sources has been targeted at security concerns, ignoring myriad other areas that would perhaps benefit more readily from aid spending, such as health and education. The lack of support for key areas of Afghan development might not prove particularly significant given the precipice that the country appears to be falling into, but propping up Karzai’s completely discredited and rotten regime (and its equally corrupt military) is rapidly becoming a disaster. The haste with which NATO appears to preparing to exit the country merely reinforces the notion that this is not a humanitarian intervention. The second important issues relates to the wider application of the use of aid for protecting issues of national security. In war zones there is an arguable necessity in directing aid towards a nation’s security capacity; what will happen in those states where the same principles do not apply? There is clearly the potential for a reappraisal of which nations will be useful recipients of DFID’s aid programme – those nations that are unlikely to contain threats to British national security could potentially see their aid cut. This would include much of Sub-Saharan Africa with the clear exception of Somalia. The region includes many of the world’s poorest nations; those that are dependent upon foreign aid (albeit with this having debatable consequences.) Somalia would be a prime target for a move towards an aid agenda driven by national security concerns, yet the state’s (used in the loosest term possible) incredibly unstable nature will most probably dissuade the West from any significant intervention. DFID’s future direction may be to move away from the more holistic approach it has taken in recent years to one guided by self-interest. Not only is this at odds with some of the guiding principles of aid provision, it is unlikely to prove especially successful.

Aid is fundamentally altruistic. There exists a clear requirement to monitor the return upon the provision of aid, but this should be made on the basis of how it alleviates the suffering of those most in need. By placing issues of national security as the primary concern, the return upon aid provision has the potential to be measured in misguided terms. Aid related to the development of a nation’s health and education provision has repeatedly proven itself to be integral to a state’s progress. In the wider context of development models, investment in human capital and education have often been ultimately conducive to particularly fast rates of economic growth. Health and education are not usually central to a nation’s security concerns however. Through directing aid to other avenues, some of the world’s poorest individuals may become increasingly vulnerable as a consequence of DFID’s future aid policy. Not only may health and education programmes endure a shortfall from redirected aid spending but perverse incentives to actually undermine positive development approaches could yet arise. Investment in education creates possible conflict with national security concerns. Suppose aid earmarked for education encourages the establishment of Madrassas that ultimately encourage the radicalisation of a number of individuals. Perhaps investment in communications infrastructure will increase exposure to radical thought via the internet. On a particularly basic level, encouraging individuals to unite on a daily basis in one particular place (as education provision does) will lead to an exchange and consolidation of ideas antithetical to Western principles. This blog doesn’t believe that these processes will happen, yet this line of thought could be used as justification for DFID to restructure aid provision.

The most alarming outcome would be for the aid imbalance to overwhelmingly favour investment in a nation’s security and military capabilities at the expense of institution and basic infrastructure building. An increasingly militaristic state will always be vulnerable to a potential Coup d’état and, consequently, the establishment of an extremely powerful military dictatorship with little credible opposition. Should this new hypothetical regime support the UK’s national security interests would this be viewed as a satisfactory outcome? There really isn’t a significant difference between this and the disgraceful Reagan doctrine. It would be completely opposed to the humanitarian principles upon which the provision of aid is founded.

The realignment of DFID’s aid policy is in keeping with many of the wider changes the Conservative-dominated UK government wishes to implement. Although the pledge to retain overseas aid spending at 0.7% of GNI by 2013 is to be applauded, it has come at a cost. Under the guise of efficiency savings, DFID will cut a third of its present workforce in East Kilbride and abandon the majority of the near-100 aid-related pledges that were established under Labour. This is a somewhat mystifying decision given the proclaimed move towards an output-based approach to assessing overseas aid requirements. By removing established targets what are the ultimate aims of DFID’s aid programme? Using the ringfencing of DFID’s budget as justification for a pejorative shift in policy direction is embarrassing for the UK as a whole, and worrying for many smaller NGOs that are reliant upon DFID’s present investment choices. It’s another neoliberal answer that nobody needs. As if the British people weren’t going to suffer enough from a government with an ideological basis that has never worked, DFID’s aid revisions will ensure that this suffering is exported to some of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

The unequivocally appalling rhetoric emerging from Cameron himself over the weekend is that, rather than challenge the vast amount of potential tax revenue lost through tax avoidance (not a crime, albeit socially irresponsible) and tax evasion (accounting for the overwhelming majority of the tax gap and a criminal act), they would rather attack some of the poorest members of society. Benefit fraud is undoubtedly a (relatively minor) problem but accounts for a minimal amount of the total fraudulent activity in the UK each year. Of the£5bn figure quoted by Cameron, a significant majority is in the form of benefit error, rather than fraud.

This is all illustrated strikingly by the following rather interesting graph from Left Foot Forward, and reinforced by this damning indictment of the Tory’s misguided focus from Richard Murphy at Tax Research UK.

It’s also fairly unsurprising to discover that there are vested interests between certain credit reference agencies and the Tory party themselves. Experian, one of the UK’s leading credit reference agencies, already has a contract to inspect housing benefit claimants and, with Michael Spencer as its founder, has a major Tory party donor as one of its leading lights.

It’s ultimately a classic illustration of Tory politics. Attack the most vulnerable in society through protecting the interests of the wealthy, replacing state services with unregulated and incompetent private sector provision, a fair amount of cronyism if not corruption itself, and an outcome which only damages society and the economy further. It really has been remarkable to watch just how low the Tories will sink. New depths are reached with every passing week and the downward trajectory shows little sign of abating. Should they not successfully manage to achieve the most blatant and undemocratic piece of gerrymandering in recent decades, they will incur serious damage to their credibility during this first term of office.

What bothers me more than anything is that little Communist RED STAR on the odious Campbell’s lapel. THAT is what “New” Fascist Labour was all about, a nasty MARXIST confiscatory, freedom stealing junta hidden behind Blair’s grin. campbell will soon be changing his name to Berya, although with the way they scapegoat and demonise people GOEBBELS would be more appropriate

This post was originally going to list allthepotentialfailings that a Tory government would likely possess, and the subsequently damaging impact that these would have upon the UK in the foreseeable future. However, such is the overwhelming presence of similar articles doing the rounds in the mainstream media and blogosphere, a simple picture seems a rather more effective warning.

This article is rather more impressive than a thousand other contemporaries discussing non-issues such as ‘Bigotgate’, immigration, and tv debates. We remain so far stuck within a crisis of capitalism we cannot regain perspective upon it. Too large to contemplate, too problematic to challenge.

The current farce at Goldman Sachs should shock us in to action, though not akin to the action taken with Greece’s economic woes – the wrong prescription from an institution with an almost unparalleled history of disastrous economic intervention, which will ultimately aid those who need it least.

The market remains largely unadmonished, unregulated, and propelled through flawed speculation. Staffed by over-privileged incompetents, the financial sector will fail again; only this time there’ll be no state to pick up the pieces, no protection from brutal levels of unemployment, no safety net.

On a wider scale, the neoliberal system has somehow remained despite overwhelming indications of its complete inability to work effectively. On a local scale, a Conservative Party victory on Thursday/Friday will tear apart the fabric of UK society for the foreseeable future. It doesn’t have to be this way – small victories for the left will save the global financial system. Listening to Krugman, Stiglitz et al can help to craft the widespread regulation that is so vital. Sustainable growth should be the aim.

As was touched upon in this post, and following a week in which we have seen The Sununsurprisingly shift its political allegiance to the Conservative Party, the influence that the media holds over our parliamentary representatives has never been greater.

The Sun has a remarkable track record in recent general elections of always backing the winning party. Is this merely that it closely matches the prevailing mood of the British public or, rather, that it shapes this public opinion through its editorial stance? Obviously these processes are not mutually exclusive, yet the idea that the present UK media could strongly influence UK public opinion is deeply troubling.

The timing of The Sun’s shift in political allegiance (on the night after Gordon Brown’s keynote speech at the Labour Party conference) was intended to cause maximum damage to the Labour brand at a particularly sensitive time. Labour, to their discredit, appeared to fall into denial. Dismissive and mocking of The Sun’s decision, whilst simultaneously not failing to make repeat mentions of it throughout the remainder of the conference.

Labour are concerned and rightfully so. Clearly, there is more to this story than a mere editorial decision. Cameron openly welcomed The Sun’s move with an element of faux-surprise. His disingenuously earnest face matched by his now all-too-familiar empty rhetoric about ‘the task in hand’. Whilst The Sun’s decision has the dirty prints of the Tories all over it, particularly with respect to its timing, the even filthier paw of the Murdochs left its greasy residue for all to see. The Sunopenly admitted so, yet this makes their overwhelming involvement no more palatable.

Mini Murdoch has, unsurprisingly, reinforced such attacks upon the BBC, citing in a speech at this year’s Edinburgh TV festival that the BBC’s prominent position across a range of media is a threat to private competition. Such apparent concern for retaining media plurality is disingenuous at best, given the apparent ease in which the Murdoch empire continues to expand, removing many competing media outlets as it does so. The BBC stands as a major obstacle to a Murdoch media monopoly, an entity that would prove extremely threatening to democratic ideals in the UK.

Given the apparently coincidental coalescence of both the Murdoch and Tory attitudes to the UK media’s future, it is pertinent to question the relationship between the two. It seems increasingly likely that a behind-the-scenes deal has been brokered. The Tories will emasculate the BBC in its current form, providing an increasingly open media market for the Murdoch empire to further increase its presence and, potentially, control. In return, the Murdochs will use their increasingly dominant media presence to promote the Conservative Party and its ideals. An easy decision given the favourable economic and sociopolitical climate that the Tories will provide for the Murdochs. Make no mistake, this is an overwhelmingly political decision. The creation of this coalition is a serious threat to an already divided and weak British Left.

The financial crisis is central to these recent media developments. Besides obviously suffering a sharp reduction in advertising revenue, the Murdoch’s media empire represents a world view that has become almost wholly discredited. The same view that is largely shared by the Conservatives. The idea that unfettered markets have failed is unquestionably damaging to the Right. However, much of the UK media has spun the lie that it is the monolithic UK state that is to blame for our economic downturn – a view widely supported by the Conservatives. Unfortunately, a large proportion of the UK public appear to be buying this myth. A fact that has not gone unnoticed to Murdoch et al.

Whilst global opinion favours a return to more Keynesian economic models, the Conservatives will reduce state expenditure on a level not experienced since the Thatcher era. Despite such ideas holding little credibility amongst most prominent economists, they do gain support from many media owners. The gravest short-term danger of this Conservative-Murdoch alliance is that the UK public will support economic reforms that will lead to a double-dip recession. The long-term effects could be even more damaging. Attacking what remains of the media Left will only serve to reduce government accountability in the UK – a healthy society has a balanced political spectrum. Without a credible opposition, government can operate with impunity.